Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, claimed a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) while filing its return of income belatedly. The CPC disallowed the deduction based on the delayed filing, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had condoned the delay in filing the return. Since the deduction claim was not examined by lower authorities, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the deduction under Section 80P can be allowed when the return of income is filed beyond the due date, and if the High Court's condonation of delay impacts this.
Sections Cited
80P, 139(1), 143(1), 119(2)(b), 234A, 234B, 234C, 80P(2)(a)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This appeal filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051241330(1) dated 24.03.2023, on the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant’s case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the CPC, Bangalore has erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act Rs. 3,74,06,857/- on the ground thatreturn of income was not filed within the prescribed due date u/s 139(1) of the Act by way of an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act by failing to appreciate that this was not permissible u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held CPC, Bangalore erred in disallowing the deduction u/s 80P of the Act of Rs.3,74,06,857/- onfiling of return of income beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act by way of an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act as the enabling provision Section 143(1)(a)(v)) was introduced by Finance Act, 2021 4. w.e.f1April2021andwasnotonthestatuteforimpugnedAY2019-20 5. The learned Commissioner of Income –tax ought to have appreciated that, on merits, the Appellant is eligible for deduction of Rs. 3,74,06,857/- claimed by the Appellant under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the return of incomefiled for the year 6. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax/ Director General of Income Tax, the Appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act since it is not in accordance with the law as the rate, amount and the method of calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of thehearing ofthe appeal,the Appellantprays that the appealmay be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee is a Co-operative Society and is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed return of income on 19.03.2020 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.3,74,06,857/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Subsequently, assessee received communication from the CPC detailing the proposed adjustment. In the communication, it was proposed that “In schedule VI-A, under part C, deductions in repsect of certain income in Sl.No.2.m deduction is claimed under section 80P however return is not filed within due date”. Accordingly, return was processed on 13.07.2020 under section 143(1 a) of the Act and deduction was not allowed. Resultantly, a sum of Rs.1,65,90,100/- was determined as tax payable.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), aftr considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee has not filed ruturn of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, deduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee, and dismissed the appeal. In the mean time, assessee had filed application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the PCIT seeking condonation for delay in filing the return and the same was dismissed and the said action was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.9864 of 2024. The learned Counsel submitted that he Hon’ble High Court has observed that the responsdent has hyper technical approach in not condoning the delay of 162 days without appreciating. The Hon’ble High Court has condoned the delay and allowed the WP of the assessee in which it has been observed as under:
On going through the above observation of the Hon’ble High Court, it is noticed that the Hon’ble High Court has condoned the delay in filing the return of income belatedly by 162 days. Since the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has not been examined by any of the lower authorities, therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting the issue back to the file of JAO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law and AO is further directed to given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee is directed to produce necessary documents for substantianting its claim of deduction and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page.